On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM, "Jan H. Schönherr"
wrote:
> Am 23.08.2012 16:14, schrieb p...@google.com:
>> From: Paul Turner
>>
>> Now that our measurement intervals are small (~1ms) we can amortize the
>> posting
>> of update_shares() to be about each period overflow. This is a large cost
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Jan H. Schönherr
schn...@cs.tu-berlin.de wrote:
Am 23.08.2012 16:14, schrieb p...@google.com:
From: Paul Turner p...@google.com
Now that our measurement intervals are small (~1ms) we can amortize the
posting
of update_shares() to be about each period
Am 23.08.2012 16:14, schrieb p...@google.com:
> From: Paul Turner
>
> Now that our measurement intervals are small (~1ms) we can amortize the
> posting
> of update_shares() to be about each period overflow. This is a large cost
> saving for frequently switching tasks.
[snip]
> @@ -1181,6
Am 23.08.2012 16:14, schrieb p...@google.com:
From: Paul Turner p...@google.com
Now that our measurement intervals are small (~1ms) we can amortize the
posting
of update_shares() to be about each period overflow. This is a large cost
saving for frequently switching tasks.
[snip]
@@
4 matches
Mail list logo